Dogma

[Link]

Dogma can be achieved with dialogue and proofs, but it must not be decided by a few on behalf of the masses.

 

[Deeje]

It still isn't clear for me what exactly your position is. (But we should discuss that in an Evolution vs. Creationism thread.)

JW’s are not anti-science. What we reject is the very foundation of your ‘doctrine’.....that a single celled organism (still a relatively complex lifeform) can simply materialise out of nowhere, undirected, uncreated, with all the capabilities to not only replicate itself, but to transform itself into all the lifeforms that have ever lived on this earth. If you want an unbelievable fairy story, that is what that is to us.

In all my discussions with evolutionists (especially the nasty ones who seem to see any criticism of science as a personal attack) not one has produced anything but supposition (liberally peppered with insults concerning our ignorance) about how that process started (we don’t touch abiogenesis!...not our branch) nor how the process continued on to get from microscopic life....to gigantic creatures like dinosaurs or whales ....except by suggestion. Apparently if you throw a few million years at something, anything is possible if you want it to be.

We accept adaptation because that is testable science. But to take what is testable and impose it on what is not testable....that is where we part company. There is an assumption (belief) that the continuation of this process is possible....but there is no way to prove it by experimentation.

I also don't know if it is a rule for JW to believe in creationism and if so, how that rule is formulated and what you think about making such a belief a rule. (That would fit into this debate.)

If you believe in God and accept the Bible as his instruction manual, then there is no room for assuming that evolution is true.
We are not “creationists” as in the YEC’s version. We see the creation account in a much broader sense than a ‘big wizard in the sky waving creation into existence in 7 literal days’.

When you study the Bible, many things, not revealed by a cursory reading, become clear. First of all the opening verse of Genesis is a simple statement of the creation of all matter. It has no details because they were not necessary for their intended audience several thousand years ago, who had no knowledge of science. It was enough to just state the fact that the Creator used his unlimited energy to create the universe.

The succeeding verses, (given no real timeframe because the Hebrew word “day” can mean a period of undetermined length) are also a simplified version of the preparation of one planet, chosen for its location, the speed of its rotation, and the natural tilt of its axis, and given a carefully prepared atmosphere, and abundantly supplied with a miraculous substance upon which all life depends....water.....and just the right amount of light, also vital for life the thrive.

It is obvious to us that we are dealing with an Intelligent Creator who carefully used his unlimited power, with unlimited time up his sleeve, to plan his actions over millions of years. No magician required. Just the ultimate scientist using his knowledge and power to carry out his own agenda.

The first life to appear on earth were plants and obviously bacteria (each with reproductive ability) to break down dead matter and to condition the soil. There would be no point in mentioning microscopic life to a people with no capacity to understand what could not be seen with the naked eye. Microscopes were still thousands of years away. God preserved the lives of his people by encouraging them to do what we are doing now....washing their hands and using quarantine measures. Back then, no one knew why these things were necessary....we do now.

Genesis begins with animated life in the water, and flying creatures....and land animals, both wild and domestic....and finally man, made in the image of his Creator because he had an assignment that would require more than the programmed instincts of other living creatures. We are unique for a reason.

Unlike YEC’s we don’t fight with science’s old earth or its ancient extinct creatures. We have an explanation that allows science and the Bible to mesh seamlessly. We believe that creation took place over many millions of years...in a careful and deliberate way.

So rather than having a rule that you can’t believe in evolution, we simply have no need to believe in science’s anti-God version of events which are based on their beliefs, rather than on any real indisputable facts.

Neither side in this issue has indisputable facts, so we have to take sides. It amuses me that some ‘Christians’ take a position with a foot in both camps as if that somehow makes them card carrying members of both. I believe that they are kidding themselves personally.....sold out to science instead of seeing how and why life came into existence by simply examining the scriptures to address their doubts.

Is that enough of an explanation? Can you see why we have a completely different approach to this subject?

 

[osgart]

Dogma is about drawing lines as to what is acceptable and what is never so. Where one draws lines makes all the difference; the difference between love and hate.

Artificial lines are rigid and inflexible and often have no reason or justification behind them.

The only line I draw is between virtues and vices. The virtues are self explanatory and their motives are clear. That's why I think most dogma is artificial and thus blinds people to actuality.

 

[Heyo]

Dogma is about drawing lines as to what is acceptable and what is never so. Where one draws lines makes all the difference; the difference between love and hate.

Artificial lines are rigid and inflexible and often have no reason or justification behind them.

The only line I draw is between virtues and vices. The virtues are self explanatory and their motives are clear. That's why I think most dogma is artificial and thus blinds people to actuality.

I guess even virtues are not that dogmatic as they sometimes seem. Take obedience for example. It seems to be the first virtue in the Abrahamic religions and disobedience the first sin. Obedience is one of three vows a monk takes.
But today we don't take "just following orders" as an excuse for atrocities. We demand disobedience. The dogma/virtue has shifted.

 

[osgart]

I guess even virtues are not that dogmatic as they sometimes seem. Take obedience for example. It seems to be the first virtue in the Abrahamic religions and disobedience the first sin. Obedience is one of three vows a monk takes.
But today we don't take "just following orders" as an excuse for atrocities. We demand disobedience. The dogma/virtue has shifted.

The virtues are better taken as a whole then in part. What would obedience look like without the virtue of discretion, honor, and honesty. Blind obedience is no virtue. And there are a lot of virtues.

If we hold ourselves to worthy standards such as obedience to virtues then we are not looking to point fingers at everybody else and we won't take less then those worthy standards.

I can't hold everybody accountable to me, but I can hold them accountable to virtues on the whole.

Sometimes disobedience to our masters is the right thing to do when the master is not acting morally or virtuously.

But to demand blind disobedience is not right.

If there is no standard then 'just following orders' is empty and immoral. A leader is always held accountable to the virtues.

Anything that doesn't follow virtues is wayward and off the mark. The dogma/ virtues is a matter of worthy definition of said virtues.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Definition of dogma
1 a : something held as an established opinion especially : a definite authoritative tenet

b : a code of such tenets pedagogical dogma
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds​

2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
-- Merriam-Webster

So, dogmata are defining, authoritative positions necessary to be held to belong to a group, party, church. This keeps the group together and "clean" in their position. If someone states to be a member of a dogmatic group, I know exactly what position s/he holds. Therefore dogmata should be formulated and upheld.

Dogmata can be, and often are, wrong (not in accord with reality). It may have been right or considered to be right once upon a time but holding on to an ancient dogma just makes the whole group wrong. Therefore dogmata should be discussed and, if found to be wrong, abandoned.


What's your position on dogma? Examples? Reasons for or against?

I consider dogma to be the end / a show-stopper in knowledge gathering.

You say "Therefore dogmata should be discussed and, if found to be wrong, abandoned.", but this to me seems self-contradicting.
If one holds a position on something, and leaving the door open for future evidence to change their minds... then I don't think "dogma" is the correct term to correct their position.

Dogma is usually used for those positions that are not to be questioned.